User talk:Siraroun
Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the File:Htw.png page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Arya Snow (talk) 18:36, February 1, 2014 (UTC) Tedster1995 (talk) 19:04, February 4, 2014 (UTC)Hi just wondering where you get unit images from, and if you know where to get agent images from aswell, if you could tell me that would be great thanksTedster1995 (talk) 19:04, February 4, 2014 (UTC) Please do not keep changing the page Hyrule to concern only the continent instead of the entire planet. The Great Sea doesn't need its own page, just because it is the setting of the expansion instead of the main mod. I think I'm sounding much like a broken record right now... - Arya Snow (talk) 14:50, February 6, 2014 (UTC) Iemanis The name of the Gohma's progenitor is spelt I'emanis (with an i), not '''L'emanis (with an L). Stop changing it. - Arya Snow (talk) 10:18, June 29, 2014 (UTC) Separating categories for factions in HTW and expansions There are some problems with your new division of HTW factions and GSTW factions: * The expansion's full name is 'Great Sea: Total War', not 'Great Sea' alone. * The category name 'Factions' would indicate itself to be a category for ALL factions, not just the ones in vanilla HTW. The category for factions in HTW should be more clear, for example, 'Factions in HTW',... - Arya Snow (talk) 00:43, July 3, 2014 (UTC) Unit division The mod doesn't use the standard Total War infantry-missile-cavalry-artillery division to classify units. It uses a much more complicated unit type system like in this article (which shouldn't be represented on the faction page itself, but on individual units' pages). - Arya Snow (talk) 01:25, July 3, 2014 (UTC) Stalfos When the Stalfos was first made playable, they were intended to raise skeletons right from the battlefield. The problem is, it somehow didn't work, and the Stalfos were unable to get new units. In order to fix this problem, UN created the Necromancer. The Graveyard was added much later, when that problem is no more. - Arya Snow (talk) 14:47, July 3, 2014 (UTC) Placeholder stats and Doomknockers Well, I have put the current stats of the units into their pages, haven't I? Or am I being amnesiac here? About the Doomknockers, they ARE ranged units. They fight by throwing their maces until they run out of ammo or are forced into a melee. Like all other ranged units, I might add. - Arya Snow (talk) 00:39, July 4, 2014 (UTC) :Yes, they have enough flails to use as ranged weapons. The mace to the right is their melee weapon, which they only have 1 of. :The stats are from the EDU. I didn't put in the number and attack because I didn't feel like it. They'll be replaced in 3 days at most, because the next version is coming very soon. I just put in the armour values because if I didn't, you'll order me 'do not complain about something'... even though I am the admin here. And yet it didn't work... :Final one: put the recruitment data above the stats, and use prose in that section. Yes, your method can work for simple units like Town Guards or Initiates, but for the more esoteric ones like Elder Goats, Yook Smashers or the Stalfos units, that isn't going to cut out. - Arya Snow (talk) 00:54, July 4, 2014 (UTC) ::Backwards in which way, I might ask? ::If I shoot something down, you are within your right to question it, but demands and accusations are not the way to go about it. Ask politely about something - okay, no problem. Shouting at the senior editor and forcing him to submit to your will is a completely different story altogether. ::About the recruitment data, you can use your format for the numbers - but ONLY the numbers. The 'How:' at the beginning is completely redundant. - Arya Snow (talk) 01:56, July 4, 2014 (UTC) :::Every other gaming wiki I've seen puts story information above gameplay ones (unless if there's no story to speak of), and it works quite well by itself, so I'm sticking with it. - Arya Snow (talk) 02:16, July 4, 2014 (UTC) Unit stats My, my... there are so many problems with the new unit stat format... * As I said before, use prose to indicate where a unit is recruited (not your 'Where: ' format). It might work for simple units like Swordsmen Recruits and Homeguards, but for the more esoteric ones like mercenaries, Elder Goats, or Stalfos units, it's inadequate. It's fine to use your format for numbers like cost or upkeep, but only numbers. Nothing else. * "Pure Stats (For Wiki Writer Use. Long !)" Seriously, is this the name of a mainspace wiki page? Wikis are supposed to be well-organised, which is definitely not the case with this page. The title sounds more like a forum thread's than a wiki article's, and the contents are the same thing. Next time, please put these things in your userspace instead of the mainspace. As for the stats, don't add them until absolutely everything about them is clear. It is no use adding tags like 'spear, long_pike, spear_bonus_8' when nobody (including myself) can understand them. In addition, even fernavliz says that the program needs some work, so it's obviously not in a condition ready to be added to the wiki. - Arya Snow (talk) 04:29, August 1, 2014 (UTC) :So, according to you, the stats thing should be like this, on pages of 'simple' units: * '''Where: :And on pages of 'complex' units: * can be obtained by doing action Y... :Inconsistency ensues. It's better to use prose universally for all units rather than using both prose and your format inconsistently. And 'Where:' is quite unwieldy too, so to speak. :Yes, it's fine to ask people for help on the main page. On the other hand, it's NOT acceptable to place a mockup (like the Pure Stats page) in the mainspace. Put it in a talk page, in your userspace, or in the forums - no problem. But the mainspace is not the proper place for it. Not to mention the very bizarre name. :Are you saying that these stats are better than no stats? It would seem so... until you actually look at the page itself: * It's an orphan, as only 1 article links to it, so it's difficult to find it (and the stats inside it) through links. * A lot of the stats are incomprehensible to the average M2TW player. Yeah, they might know what do 'unit number', 'HP', 'armour', 'defence skill',... mean; but what about things like 'skeleton compensation', 'ap', 'min. delay', 'bp', 'spear, long_pike, spear_bonus_8'? Or can they distinguish between 'primary attack' and 'secondary attack'? I think not. :I'm not talking about the numbered stats like armour or attack, but about the tags like 'spear, long_pike, spear_bonus_8', or 'ap, bp'. You might be right that badly-formatted and badly-placed stats are better than no stats at all, but it's definitely not the case with these tags. Does your average M2TW player understand them? I think not. And if the average player can't understand them, then it's not much better than if they weren't there at all. And I might repeat what fernavliz said: This program still needs futher testing because it seems that it makes mistakes with certain units (e.g. King Dodongo). False information is DEFINITELY not allowed on a wiki. If you aren't sure that a particular piece of information is correct, then DO NOT add it. - Arya Snow (talk) 06:35, August 1, 2014 (UTC) ::Of course other editors can see it if you put a link to it, either in the main page, in the forums, or somewhere else. You clearly stated that: 'The page is not for viewer use' - which means it shouldn't be in the mainspace. The mainspace serves as the encyclopaedia proper, no mockups or prototypes are allowed there. And what's the problem with putting it in your userspace anyway? It doesn't hurt the page's notability at all. ::I don't add the stats because I haven't finished the stat template yet. Now it's finished. Happy? (Just don't use it for cavalry, ranged units, siege weapons, heroes and bosses. They'll need their own templates.) ::I was just trying to keep the wiki tidy and organised, but you took my advice as a personal attack. Be civil, please. - Arya Snow (talk) 11:25, August 1, 2014 (UTC) Mercenaries and wildlife Mercenaries and wildlife are groups of units, not factions. They shouldn't be in the Factions category. - Arya Snow (talk) 08:53, September 11, 2014 (UTC) :You put these pages in the factions category for accessibility, but it doesn't change the fact that they are not factions. In-game, the wild animals are technically considered to be a 'faction' because of game engine limitations (otherwise they will not work properly). For all intents and purposes, they are not a faction and shouldn't be in the factions category. - Arya Snow (talk) 02:57, September 12, 2014 (UTC)